Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.

The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”

This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.

Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.

Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.

‘Please Be My Breeder-Slave’?

If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their d*ck receptacles.” There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. . . .

It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their [penis] in, impregnate and abuse.

The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.

Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.

Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shame for her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “d*ck receptacle”?

The War on Sexual Biology

Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.

As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.

If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.

It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share. And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.

I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.

I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.

Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.

Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!

Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Muslin Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is an interesting, informative, and for the politically correct and infuriating read. Islam, Muslims, immigration, Jihad, Sharia, and the war against our civilization, culture, and creed is a present reality. Gutless public officials are selling us short either by complicity with the enemy or due to a doctrinaire commitment to idiotic tolerance ideology. Whatever the case, citizens must stand up against the invasion now before it is to late. The author suggests that the fuse is burning and the results will end in a complete upheaval of America and every free nation, unless we act now. Forget the lame stream media. Forget Obama. Common sense mandates, our very survival demands that we act NOW to keep America from going off the cliff; This book promises to be a life changing read.

Author

Robert Stacy McCain is an award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience in the news business. He is a correspondent for The American Spectator, editor-in-chief at Viral Read and blogs at TheOtherMcCain.com.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

Help keep the Wire live! BarbWire is not NPR or PBS. We Receive no government assistance.

Question: "Is my donation tax-deductable?"

Answer: Heck no! We don't want the government telling us what we can and can't say! Do you?